16 September 11:30 Room D107

MakerSpaces for Open Practice

Chris Follows University of the Arts London

University of the Arts London (UAL) has led the field in open education and digital literacies activities and projects in arts subjects over the past eight years, mostly through external or part funded projects . However awareness of open educational resources (OER), Open Educational Practice (OEP) and digital making remain under the radar, outside mainstream pedagogic practice. Staff and students lack confidence, skills and awareness or can criticality engage and challenge practices such as self-archiving, online identities, online presence , digital making and physical computing.

This paper aims to explore the widening gap between formal pedagogic practices (institutional) and the informal emergent digital domains and practices (Grassroots) within arts learning & teaching. How do we reconcile these differences? Chris will share the experiences and challenges of the digital learning, teaching and enhancement work at CCW (Camberwell, Chelsea, and Wimbledon Colleges of Arts) in the development of formal digital learning and teaching practices along side the emergent informal grassroots learning practices. The CCW Digital MakerSpace is a growing informal, cross disciplinary community exploring and supporting emergent digital making practice through safe-fail experimentation with new & old materials and technologies. A MakeSpace community requires a rich variety of expertise, peer support, knowledge sharing, specialist equipment, tools and support. The CCW MakerSpace community aims to foster a collaborative approach across disciplines, HEIs, industry, projects, UAL Chairs, Enterprise and is open to explore all collaboration possibilities.

The community at present includes staff, students & external collaborators who aim to openly share experience, knowledge and interest in experimentation with physical/interactive tech and traditional making practice. The CCW Digital MakerSpace work provides a useful enabler for open practice and OER development and vice versa, physical and virtual interests and activities are brought together with new expanded learning and teaching communities and networks are created. Making sense of the current digital learning and teaching landscape is complicated. I will use an adapted version of the cynefin sense-making framework to help illustrate and explore the different perspectives across the agile landscape of digital L&T at CCW colleges of arts. We move between the four domains of the Cynefin framework: Simple, Complicated, Complex and Novel as we situate and understand digital learning and teaching practice.

As we move withing these domains we decide what action is appropriate to apply to the situation to move forwards: Categorise, Analyse, Probe or Stabalise. The Cynefin framework helps us identify gaps in the agile landscape, but equally important it helps us appreciate and accept all the different domains of digital L&T practice that work well. The mapping process clearly highlights the imbalance between (safe/simple) curriculum dependent/institutionally led and supported TEL (technology enhanced learning) and grassroots (complicated/complex) influenced TEL.

Exploring free & open education at University of the Arts London - http://process.arts.ac.uk/content/exploring-free-open-education-university-arts-london
Online Identities Projects UAL - http://process.arts.ac.uk/content/online-identities-projects-ual
The CCW Digital MakerSpace (http://process.arts.ac.uk/category/project-groups/ccw-digital-makerspace)
Understanding digital domains in arts learning & teaching - http://process.arts.ac.uk/content/understanding-digital-domains-arts-learning-teaching
Cynefin – Dave Snowdon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin

Thinking critically: Understanding learning technology in humanities teaching practice

Kathryn James Edinburgh Napier University

Past decades have seen a drive for technology use in higher education teaching and learning, fuelled by government funding and supported by studies focused on its transformative potential, alongside discussion on barriers to its adoption and strategies for engagement (Beetham and Sharpe, 2007; Clark, 2010; Laurillard, 1993, 2002; JISC, 2011). Despite this drive and associated celebrity discourses, there are considerable differences in adoption rates across both the sector and disciplines. However, the ascendency of technology as a ‘positive project’ to improve education (Selwyn 2011) remains dominant.

The primacy given to the adoption of learning technologies has rendered many academics voiceless, labelled luddites, anti-technology or resistant to change if uncovered as questioning its unbridled benefits (Clegg, 2003). Questioning critically the reality of adoption and use at micro institutional level is rare, so too is reflection on what constitutes an understanding enhancement within the phase ‘technology enhanced learning’, and seldom considered are the unseen and unexpected impacts on the academic lifeworld (Kirkwood and Price, 2014; McLean, 2008; Selwyn, 2014).

This paper will draw from a doctoral research case study that critically engages with these questions. It will directly address humanities academic understanding of the benefits technology has for teaching and learning, in addition to perceived drawbacks. The paper will discuss academic decision practices, how these accommodate technology, as well as the process, the unintended, unseen and hidden impacts on academic knowledge, practices and identity (Ball, 2003). At the core of this paper is the stance that learning technology is not about tools, and it is not neutral; it is about social systems and processes which impact and favour some groups above others.

References

Ball, S.J., (2003) “The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity,” in Journal of Education Policy, Vol., 18 (2,), pp.215-228
Beetham, H. and Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy in a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. Routledge. London.
Clark D. (2010) “Don’t Lecture Me”. Keynote: ALT-C 2010, 6-9 September 2010, Nottingham. http://altc2010.alt.ac.uk/talks/14987
Clegg, S., Hudson, A., and Steel, J., (2003) “The Emperor's New Clothes: Globalisation and e-learning in Higher Education”, British Journal of Sociology of Education. Vol. 24 (1), pp.39-53
JISC (2011). Transformation through technology: Illustrating JISC’s impact across two decades. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), [02/01/14], http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/general/2010/impact2010final.pdf
Kirkwood, A., and Price, L., (2014) “Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review,” in Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 39 (1), pp.6–36.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking teaching for the knowledge society. EDUCAUSE Review, 37, (1), 16-25.
McLean, M., (2008) Pedagogy and the University: Critical theory and practice. London. Continuum.
Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. London. Routledge.
Selwyn, N., (2011) “In praise of pessimism: The need for negativity in educational technology” British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 42 (5) pp.713–718

Watch The Clock - Pedagogic Practice and Intimate Technology

Andy Lee University of the Arts London

This presentation will explore possible pedagogic approaches enabled by the mainstreaming of wearable technology with particular and practical focus on the impact of smart watches on learning environments, scholarly activity and creative practice. As mobile technology becomes more personalised, how might it's wearability and intimacy change the students approach to their expectations of virtual learning spaces, their interaction with institutions and individuals in the classroom and their peers? For staff, how important might our understanding of this emerging landscape be in informing our teaching practice and what lessons can we learn for best utilising the devices ourselves to forward academic innovation?

As an extension of smartphone capabilities, devices worn on the body seek to augment our personal worlds with our digital life in increasingly intimate ways, from fashion and style choices to biometric sensors and haptic feedback. As wider commercial interests adopt this technology to create environments that will transform the retail and leisure sector, how might these new landscapes impact and shape student expectations of their learning? I'll seek to explore these questions by highlighting preliminary findings from research I will be undertaking during the Summer term at London College of Fashion around the use of Apple Watch in academic practice. Although this will be early scoping I’ll present practical examples of real-world use for learning and teaching and posit questions for future enquiry.